It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 22
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I'm not sure if any of you picked up on Produkt's tell in the paragraph I've quoted, but another noteworthy thing is the style.

If you look at Produkt's posts you'll note that he throws lots of accusations or criticisms or whatever they are out. When you address those criticisms, he just ignores it, and tries to find another weak spot. It's his MO now, and it's been his MO with his previous usernames.

In doing this Produkt perfectly demonstrates that he has no interest in learning. His sole interest is in supporting what he already believes to be true. If he can't break through defenses at one point, he just moves on... doesn't consider why he was unable to breach the wall, only that the wall must be breached... apparently at all costs, even at the cost of misrepresenting or flat out being dishonest about stuff.

This is the mark of a true charlatan... he's the evolution camp's equivalent to Kent Hovind... though it's likely produkt doesn't even have a degree from a diploma mill.



[edit on 17-9-2006 by mattison0922]




posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   


I can't prove it doesn't exist without posting the whole thing here. You, on the other hand, can very easily prove this.


So would you like me to post the transcript then?



Irrespective of who the fathers are... I doubt any of them admitted ID is repackaged creationism.


Yes, so long as we dismiss what they are quoted and known to have said, then everything is A OK in matty land.



I does say something about God, but belief in God, a belief that a god created the universe DOES NOT equal Creationism


Right, so we disregard the people who are considered as the "fathers" of the modern ID movement and what they have to say, then we disregard what creationism is and what it means and accept changed definitions of science.

Creationism: Is the doctrine that earth's different kinds of life were created separately by God.



Of course you didn't. The only answer is that I must be some sort of fundamentalist Christian.


Talk about misrepresenting. All I can say is ... I learned from a master such as yourself! I've never once claimed or stated you were a fundamentalist christian.



I am interested only in the scientific potential of the ID movement.


It's a shame there is no scientific potential to ID. Honestly, it can keep putting out as many IC system's as Behe can get off to and constantly have demolished. ID has nothing to offer the scientific community. Have you ever considered that people who've been scientist's alot longer then you've been reading up on this stuff MIGHT have a good reason or two to denounce ID? People who are a hell of alot more qualified then you are.



To understand that you'd have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of ID, and be reasonably well read in terms of origins theories.


There's not much to understand when it offer's nothing! Honestly, what's it offering beyond poking at the hole's in what we don't know yet? What original idea's is it offering the scientific community? Why are nearly all the major player's believer's in GOD? Use some damn common sense boy!



The ID camp doesn't offer these as 'proof.'


Your right, they stopped after being riduculed by real scientist's when they showed that these system's were FAR from irreducibly complex.



Expand your horizons and read something that challenges your beliefs for once.


I've read up on some IDism (READ: CREATIONISM). I'm well aware of a certain book ... Of Pandas and People. Haven't read it myself and don't care to considering it's history. Erm, what was that ... certain words changed to read intelligent design.. I'm sure your aware of those words.



you've really figured this origins stuff out,


Evolution has nothing to do with origins. You know that!




ID isn't about the designer, it's about detecting the design.


Which is one of the big problems! It can claim that a designer exist's without even PROVING that a designer exist and then just throw out anything that isn't yet known to how it evolved and claim that system is IC.



You're here to debunk


Another example is misrepresenting. Quote please. Good luck.



Maybe I should email Behe and let him know that we need an illustrated guide to ID


Probably a bad idea, his image of the designer would look an awful to much like the image of god.



Prove me wrong or continue to be recognized as the charlatan you are.


I've given the quote's. *shrugs* I guess you could continue to do what IDist's do ... Dismiss dismiss dismiss.



And you know this how... certainly not because you've bothered to read any ID.


From the ID people themselve's. Who else?!



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
So would you like me to post the transcript then?

Please refer to my earlier question about the thickness of your brain case...

No... I want you to back up your statement with the specific statement wherein you claim the founders of ID admitted that it's a sham. That's the statement you need to post to back up your assertions.

I knew this would be difficult for you Produkt, but I had no idea how difficult. You don't even understand how to properly cite a reference for crying out loud.



Yes, so long as we dismiss what they are quoted and known to have said, then everything is A OK in matty land.

Seriously are you this dense?

You haven't posted a quote. You posted a ref... not even a link to a trial transcript that I seriously doubt you've read.

You're a charlatan and a literature bluffer, and this exchange demonstrates that perfectly



Right, so we disregard the people who are considered as the "fathers" of the modern ID movement and what they have to say, then we disregard what creationism is and what it means and accept changed definitions of science.

Creationism: Is the doctrine that earth's different kinds of life were created separately by God.

Please again refer to the brain case question.

I never said disregard their statements. I said you personally are full of BS, because you are. Until you back your assertions with a specific ref. The entire ATS community will realize this about you.

Furthermore... the fact that you're a charlatan is perfectly demonstrated here. You've manipulated a word that has a specific meaning to fit your argument

Creationism is not the "doctrine that earth's different kinds of life were created," Creationism is very specifically an attempt to reconcile the biblical account of origins with the existing scientific data. You of course, are fully aware of this, and are only hoping that the rest of the ATS community is as ignorant as you'd like them to be.

Sorry, bud, but everyone here sees through your lies, exaggerations, false usernames, and literature bluffs.



Talk about misrepresenting. All I can say is ... I learned from a master such as yourself! I've never once claimed or stated you were a fundamentalist christian.

Not with this username... you learned your lesson... what two usernames ago?



It's a shame there is no scientific potential to ID. Honestly, it can keep putting out as many IC system's as Behe can get off to and constantly have demolished. ID has nothing to offer the scientific community. Have you ever considered that people who've been scientist's alot longer then you've been reading up on this stuff MIGHT have a good reason or two to denounce ID? People who are a hell of alot more qualified then you are.

Well you have absolutely no idea what my qualifications are, other than some vague, somewhat non-specific, and perhaps even underrepresented descriptions from myself.

But have I considered it? Absolutely. It's the reason I read every single ID book, both pro and con, that I can get my hands on. Once again, I'll guarantee that I've read more anti-ID books then you have. Last anti ID book read: Intelligent Thought: Science vs. the ID movement. What was the last proID book you read?
At this point I'd be willing to bet that I've read more books related to this specific issue than you've read books - of any variety.



There's not much to understand when it offer's nothing! Honestly, what's it offering beyond poking at the hole's in what we don't know yet? What original idea's is it offering the scientific community? Why are nearly all the major player's believer's in GOD? Use some damn common sense boy!

And try actually making your case with something intelligent, reasonable, and well thought out.

You'd rather espouse what your preception of something is instead of actually investigating it for yourself. Your opinion re: ID was made up long before you read any ID rebuttals. Mine wasn't. Mine is actually changing and evolving as time goes on. Yours is withering, suffering and decaying in a stagnant pool of ignorance, indifference, and prior commitment to your personaly philosophy. The comments you've offered thus far, are the intellectual equivalent of the massive steaming piles of dung offered by produkt. New username, zero personal or intellectual growth.



Your right, they stopped after being riduculed by real scientist's when they showed that these system's were FAR from irreducibly complex.

Actually, they never offered them as proof.

Come on tough guy... let's talk about some facts. Why not post a ref. wherein IC has been destroyed. We can talk about the scientific merits here...

Or are you chicken?

I imagine you'd rather continue to espouse the same brand of ignorant slag that you've been perfecting and honing here for sometime.

I'll make the specific request again: If you're so confident in IC's destruction, then let's talk about the merits of one such example here. Unless you're afraid of getting housed... intellectually that is.

Of course, I can continue to point out the fact that produkt is an ignorant fraud, charlatan, and isn't really interested in discussing or learning for as long as you can take it.... though I would prefer to decimate you based on some sort of coherent argument rather than your randoms spouts of ignorant garbage. The choice is yours really.


I've read up on some IDism (READ: CREATIONISM). I'm well aware of a certain book ... Of Pandas and People. Haven't read it myself and don't care to considering it's history. Erm, what was that ... certain words changed to read intelligent design.. I'm sure your aware of those words.

Yep... I'm aware of it allright. It's too bad you're unwilling to read it. If you had even taken a cursory look at the book, you'd realize that it most certainly isn't Creationism in the formal sense of the word. I suppose one could call it creationism, in that it does advocate a non-naturalistic account of biological origins. But of course, by that definition, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Ken Miller, all creationists.

And if you'd bothered to crack the text and look, you'd realize there is NOTHING in the book that attempts to reconcile Genesis with scientific evidence.

Furthermore, if you were aware of the history of the ID movement, you'd be aware that the term "Intelligent Design" was not in use at the time Pandas was written. Finally, the authors elaborated on this in the trial transcript that you referred to but didn't read. It's noteworthy that the content of the book hasn't changed, with the exception of substituting the term creationims (lower case c) with ID. That is the book has never been a Creationist (capital c) text.

Did you know that posting a ref you've not read is considered academic fraud?



Evolution has nothing to do with origins. You know that!

BS. Abiogenesis is the natural extrapolation of the theory of common descent. If the LUCA wasn't produced by abiogenesis, then how was it produced?

In any case, and I know I've pointed this out to you before, ID has not problem with ToCD. Behe, and many other IDists, myself included support the idea, even though I don't really consider myself an IDist.


Which is one of the big problems! It can claim that a designer exist's without even PROVING that a designer exist and then just throw out anything that isn't yet known to how it evolved and claim that system is IC.

Why is this so difficult for you?

ID doesn't claim the designer exists. It claims... well I've told you multiple times what it claims. It doesn't claim anything about the designer.

Please man, read a book.

Continued in next post by me.


[edit on 17-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   


You're here to debunk


Another example is misrepresenting. Quote please. Good luck.

No problem.

You stated that your intentions here were:

Showing ID for what it is, and what it was originally attended for

The definition of debunk is:

source
expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas


IOW, you believe ID was deliberately based on false assumptions, and is nothing more than a ploy to get religion into schools and/or science. Your purpose here, as stated by you is to "[s]how ID for what it is," that is you wish to expose what you believe to be false claims and ideas as described in the definition.

Furthermore your statements:

ID ... the biggest BS psuedo-science of all time.
considering that such a belief easily lays doubt to a designer, atleast for people with half a brain.
Jesus flipping christ ... The level's of hypocracy you exist on are amazing.

along with a plethora of similar statements are an effort to 'expose while ridculing.'

Please describe in detail, in light of this information how you are not here to 'debunk.'

Though I would imagine that this will completely brushed off by you, and you'll opt for: "why doesn't ID have to discuss the designer," or some other similar but equally tired excuse for an anti-ID argument.


Probably a bad idea, his image of the designer would look an awful to much like the image of god.

Brain case... how thick? Apparently not thick enough to prevent info from going in one ear and immediately out the other... nothing slowing it down I guess.

Since it would be an illustrated guide to ID, the designer wouldn't be included.



I've given the quote's. *shrugs* I guess you could continue to do what IDist's do ... Dismiss dismiss dismiss.

Produkt, do I have to point out that you've quoted nothing, with the exception of a vague philosophical statement from Johnson, which as I've pointed out multiple times doesn't address even a single one of your assertions so far? Your 'quotes' thus far have been meaningless in terms of this discussion.

Apparently you don't even understand how to properly reference something.



And you know this how... certainly not because you've bothered to read any ID.


From the ID people themselve's. Who else?!

Then you acquired this knowledge how.... osmosis? It's obvious you've never read any of this stuff, yet you claim to get the info from the IDists? You're going to have to explain that one to me.

How exactly do you get information from people whose work you've not read?

It's a pretty cool trick and could save me dozens of hours per week if you'd let me in your secret.

Of course, if your posting is demonstrative of the outcome of your ability to absorb info without reading it, I'll stick to reading books.

But nonetheless, I am curious how you've obtained info from an IDist if you refuse to read their work. This should be a doozey, but of course will likely be brushed off.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   


No... I want you to back up your statement with the specific statement wherein you claim the founders of ID admitted that it's a sham. That's the statement you need to post to back up your assertions.


You should be more specific then. If you look at the "timeline" of quote's and replies to one another, this was originally about the Behe statement in that trial. I wasn't made aware that you suddenly dropped that line of discussion in favor of what the "fathers" of IDism have been quoted to saying. Anywho, you already know all of this. The wedge man, the wedge! Don't play ignorant and stupid.



You haven't posted a quote. You posted a ref... not even a link to a trial transcript that I seriously doubt you've read.


This is a quote.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

Now I've posted the quote twice. I never posted the refrence for the quote. Or are you now rewritting definitions again? Again, you already know where this quote come's from. Or we could continue with our dismisal tactics and pray that no one catch's onto you.



You of course, are fully aware of this


Interesting ... more definition rewrites? Perhaps we look at two different dictionaries? Heck, I even decided to take the time and check even dictionary.com which give's a slightly reworded and yet same meaning definition for creationism.

dictionary.reference.com...

"the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."

Now, there's no chance in hell I could've been "fully aware" of your specific rewrite for the definition of creationism. Next time U2U any future re-definitions you make.



Actually, they never offered them as proof.


Gotta love dismissal tactics!



If you had even taken a cursory look at the book, you'd realize that it most certainly isn't Creationism in the formal sense of the word.


You make baby jesus cry!!!



Abiogenesis is the natural extrapolation of the theory of common descent.


BS. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Someone who *claims* to be as educated as you are would know that.



ID has not problem with ToCD


Except when it come's to eye's, blood clotting and a few other bits here and there.



ID doesn't claim the designer exists. It claims... well I've told you multiple times what it claims. It doesn't claim anything about the designer.


Your right, they don't actually say much about GOD. Which is a big problem. Since most admit that they believe that it is GOD. Along with that problem that their own idea there rules out a naturally occuring entity doing the designer and leaves only the possibility for GOD being the designer. Not to mention trying to redefine science to include the supernatural. But we can't discuss GOD being the designer because then people just MIGHT think this is a religous topic about GOD.

I already know your next post ... dismiss, redefine (for good measure of course), deny, dismiss, deny, deny, play ignorant, dismiss, etc.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
You should be more specific then. If you look at the "timeline" of quote's and replies to one another, this was originally about the Behe statement in that trial.

Which is one of the quotes we are still waiting to see. And how is this

No... I want you to back up your statement with the specific statement wherein you claim the founders of ID admitted that it's a sham. That's the statement you need to post to back up your assertions.
not a request for a specific quote?


I wasn't made aware that you suddenly dropped that line of discussion in favor of what the "fathers" of IDism have been quoted to saying.

I didn't; I still want to see this.


Anywho, you already know all of this. The wedge man, the wedge! Don't play ignorant and stupid.


Ummmm... I acknowledged that I knew where that quote came from. I simply asked you to put into context, and requested that you post the source so that readers who don't follow this stuff very closely might look it up for themselves.

In any case your quote doesn't prove that ID is creationism in disquise, nor does it prove that it's an effort to get Creationism taught in schools.

I know you're proud of yourself for posting a quote and all, but it's got to be in the context of backing up your assertions to be effective.

Please post the quote from Behe and elaborate on how the quote you did post proves what you claim it does.



This is a quote.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

It is, and I acknowledged this quote later in the post, at least enough to point out that it doesn't make the case you claim it does.


Now I've posted the quote twice. I never posted the refrence for the quote. Or are you now rewritting definitions again? Again, you already know where this quote come's from. Or we could continue with our dismisal tactics and pray that no one catch's onto you.

I fully acknowledged that I knew where this quote was from... never claimed otherwise. Not sure which definitions your claiming I changed here. You're going to have to clarify.

One more time, I asked you to list the source, as this is the generally accepted method for referencing something, and so that others can look things up for themselves. Posting the source of the quote has nothing to do with me.

I would however appreciate some description with the quote related to how you believe this quote supports your specific assertions.

If any of that constitutes 'changing definitions' then so be it.



Interesting ... more definition rewrites? Perhaps we look at two different dictionaries? Heck, I even decided to take the time and check even dictionary.com which give's a slightly reworded and yet same meaning definition for creationism.

dictionary.reference.com...

"the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."

Now, there's no chance in hell I could've been "fully aware" of your specific rewrite for the definition of creationism. Next time U2U any future re-definitions you make.

FRAUD ALERT


For the readers of this thread. Produkt has a lot of nerve posting that link in the context of that definition and this discussion. Let me post the entire link for ATS readers.


cre‧a‧tion‧ism  /kriˈeɪʃəˌnɪzəm/
Pronunciation[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.

3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

Please note the bolded definition in number two. It agrees perfectly with what I have been saying. Creationism is exactly as I have repeatedly defined it. I have furthermore made the distinction between c and C multiple times in this thread alone.

Produkt's trying to blur the line between two disparate definitions of a single word. Furthermore, he's ignoring my repeated statements conceding that ID is creationism, in the same sense that Darwin, Einstein, and Newton were all creationists.

The mainstream science movement DOESN'T have a problem with creationists, as is demonstrated by the NCSE poster child and creationist, Ken Miller.

Just so readers are aware Ken Miller, the creationist was a witness for the ID opposition, demonstrating perfectly that mainstream scientist's don't have a problem with creationists.

To drive the point home even further, PZMYers, noted EvoBiologist and ID opponent has this to say about creationists:

"There is a distinction to be made between small "c" creationists who believe in a creator god, and big "C" Creationists who wage a culture war against good science. Miller may be a believer in a creator god, but he's a staunch opponent of the Creationists—despite disagreement on matters philosophical, I should be clear in saying that he is on our side." source





Gotta love dismissal tactics!

They haven't offered them as proof. They've offered them as a basis for design inference. Big difference.

How would you know what they've offered anyway given that you refuse to read this stuff?



You make baby jesus cry!!!

Very mature of you produkt. And this statement addresses the claim how?



BS. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Someone who *claims* to be as educated as you are would know that.

Abiogenesis has everything to do with ToCD, and is subsequently a necessary problem to solve if we're to take the naturalistic origins of life AND the theory of common descent seriously.

In any case, I couldn't care less whether or not you believe my re: my background. Guaranteed, my credibility around here, and as a source of origins information in general, is orders of magnitude above yours.



Except when it come's to eye's, blood clotting and a few other bits here and there.

ID does take issue with the origin of some specific issues related to origins, but is in no way incompatible with ToCD. It's a similar situation to that of Punkeek and gradualistic mechanisms. Punkeek has serious issues with the gradual origin of species, but has no problem with ToCD. Opinions vary in science... get used to it.


Your right, they don't actually say much about GOD. Which is a big problem. Since most admit that they believe that it is GOD.

Why is this a problem? Lots of evolutionists believe in God, are we to question the motives of anyone who believes in God. How is beleif in God relevant here?

I'll answer for you. It's not... this is just more of your repeated effort to force God in there. How many times do we have to cover this, produkt?


Along with that problem that their own idea there rules out a naturally occuring entity doing the designer and leaves only the possibility for GOD being the designer. Not to mention trying to redefine science to include the supernatural. But we can't discuss GOD being the designer because then people just MIGHT think this is a religous topic about GOD.
\
Look the only one talking about God is you. ID doesn't bring it up; I certainly don't bring it up. And how can you speak to 'rules' (whatever they may be in this context) when you've not read any ID?

Again, it seems hard for me to believe that you could understand things you've not read.

Continued


[edit on 17-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
I already know your next post ... dismiss, redefine (for good measure of course), deny, dismiss, deny, deny, play ignorant, dismiss, etc.

Actually, all I've done thus far is practically beg you to back your claims up with something substantial, and pointed out your deceptive ways.

Note to ATS readers: Please follow this thread back. Judge for yourself, who has responded to each and every assertion thrown at him, and who ignores things that don't fit what he believes. Please further consider produkt's selective quoting, and use of definitions.

Finally note his inability to form any new, interesting, or even original arguments. Everything he says is regurgitated from previous posts.

If you don't believe me search all this username's posts, then search posts from two other users: produkt and prot0n. You'll quickly see if you've read one of his posts, you've read them all.

I have repeatedly begged and pleaded with produkt to post something substantial, something to back his assertions. So far the best he's come up with are an irrelevant quote which he has not elaborated on, and a definition, wherein that which disagreed with his position was quietly ommitted.

Readers: judge for yourself who's the charlatan here.

Produkt... keep shoveling!

[edit on 17-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   


Which is one of the quotes we are still waiting to see.


How many time's must I post the quote and the trial that it come's from? Obviously this tactic of deny and dismiss is getting neither of us anywhere.



not a request for a specific quote?


Refer to above! We've both already acknowledged where both quote's in question come from. The play of ignorance need's to stop matty.



I didn't; I still want to see this.


Who's the one really full of BS here matty? Let's be honest with ourselve's!



I acknowledged that I knew where that quote came from.


So what's your big issue then? You've again acknowledged where this quote come's from! This is what... the third time? I could care less about the reader's, especially when your out there making it sound as if both quote's don't exist and yet acknowledging where they come from. Your trying to confuse the reader's here. Tsk Tsk Tsk.



In any case your quote doesn't prove that ID is creationism in disquise, nor does it prove that it's an effort to get Creationism taught in schools.


More dismissal. We both know what the wedge was all about. The court system knew what the wedge was all about. Everyone here on ATS who care's to read the wedge or have will know what that quote means. You can deny and dismiss all you want. You can't change it's meaning and what it was meant for.



Please post the quote from Behe


Go back one page. Deny dismiss deny dismiss. Does anyone see a pattern in matty land?



It is, and I acknowledged this quote


No, all you've substantiated was a double standard by acknowledging this. It is about god and yet they don't want to specifically list god as the designer.



I fully acknowledged that I knew where this quote was from


QUICK TO THE EDIT MOBILE! We must delete the part that says that quote doesn't exist!



One more time, I asked you to list the source


You already know where it come's from.



I would however appreciate


Uh, what was that about reading comprehension?



Please note the bolded definition in number two.


I'm sorry. Could you please outline the distinction between god did it and god did it? They both clearly define god as the one doing the creationism in both context's. It need not matter how god did the creationism, just that god is the designer/creator. There really is no distinction.



"There is a distinction to be made between


All this really says is yes, I believe in god, but not in the same way the extremist fundies do. Big deal!



They've offered them as a basis for design inference.


Talk about bluring the lines...

What does inference mean?

To put it simply "Assumption based on an observation."

And proof? "A proof is a sequence of statements (made up of axioms, assumptions and arguments) leading to the establishment of the truth of one finat statement."

Now, from what it looked like to me at the time, before they've had their IC systems destroyed, they were trying to pass off these as IC systems. To infer, assume, or conclude they were IC. If they didn't feel that these system's were legitimate IC systems, then they would have had literally no reason to defend them as such.



Abiogenesis has everything to do with ToCD


BS.



ID does take issue with the origin


Right of course not. So long as we say the designer atleast put all the elements in place that would eventually lead up to something as complex as an eye.



Why is this a problem?


I personally dislike evolutionist's who think god did it as well. God is a man made concept, not the other way around. And ID is about god, we already know aliens are impossible in ID world.



ID doesn't bring it up


Sure it does! By his job description. Designer.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
How many time's must I post the quote and the trial that it come's from? Obviously this tactic of deny and dismiss is getting neither of us anywhere.

Once would be nice.

To clarify: you've posted a quote from the wedge, and merely referred to the trial, you didn't quote anything specific from the trial.

Produkt, you've still not posted any quote from Behe, you've posted a single quote taken from the Wedge.



Refer to above! We've both already acknowledged where both quote's in question come from. The play of ignorance need's to stop matty.

No... I acknowledged that I knew where your wedge quote came from. We're still waiting on Behe's quote from the trial.



Who's the one really full of BS here matty? Let's be honest with ourselve's!

You.



So what's your big issue then? You've again acknowledged where this quote come's from! This is what... the third time?

Yep... I know where the wedge quote comes from. No denying this. I still say the quote you claimed: 'the founders of ID admitted that it's a sham.' and attributed to Behe, doesn't exist. So far we've not seen a quote from Behe, or a quote where the founders admitted it was a sham.

The nice thing about Produkt, is that one doesn't have to work hard to expose him as the fraud he really is. He's a self-exposing fraud. Read along and see



I could care less about the reader's,

Here you have it ATS members, Produkt cares nothing about you or this community he is for one purpose and one purpose only - to debunk ID, and more broadly make fun of religious people. He has no interest in learning nor does he possess a desire to engage in productive discussion. He's here to settle a personal score with me personally, and any one who thinks differently than him.

This is all evidenced perfectly in the following paragraphs.


especially when your out there making it sound as if both quote's don't exist and yet acknowledging where they come from. Your trying to confuse the reader's here. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Now look at this statement. Produkt has posted on quote, the quote from the wedge. I fully acknowleged that I knew where this quote came from. Then we have this other phantom quote, which I know where he claims it comes from, the trial. However Produkt has yet to post this quote. I have and continue to insist that the quote from the trial where the fathers admitted ID was a sham is non-existant.

This is why produkt keeps obscuring the issue and refusing to back this assertion up. He knows it's not true.



More dismissal. We both know what the wedge was all about. The court system knew what the wedge was all about. Everyone here on ATS who care's to read the wedge or have will know what that quote means. You can deny and dismiss all you want. You can't change it's meaning and what it was meant for.

Ummm.. not dismissal, just what I personally believe to be true about the wedge. For the record, I've come out in this forum multiple times and stated that I was not comfortable with all aspects of the wedge document, but have further elaborated on why scientists should be able to feel free to pursue evidence whereever it leads them... even if they feel said evidence leads them to some sort of creator. Science is about the search for truth.



Go back one page. Deny dismiss deny dismiss. Does anyone see a pattern in matty land?

You are not in this thread on page 1. And as far back as I scroll, there is no Behe quote posted by you.

It'd be very easy to prove me wrong on this if you did actually post this quote... you realize this, don't you?


No, all you've substantiated was a double standard by acknowledging this. It is about god and yet they don't want to specifically list god as the designer.

WTF are you talking about? Design is about design, religion is about God.



QUICK TO THE EDIT MOBILE! We must delete the part that says that quote doesn't exist!

I have edited zero content in my posts... grammatical, spelling etc are the only edits I've made

*Mods: Is there anyway to substantiate my claims above re: editing, if so please post in this thread*



You already know where it come's from.

I know, I thought maybe you had an interest in your reader though... I wasn't aware that this was a personal mission for you until quite recently.



Uh, what was that about reading comprehension?





I'm sorry. Could you please outline the distinction between god did it and god did it? They both clearly define god as the one doing the creationism in both context's. It need not matter how god did the creationism, just that god is the designer/creator. There really is no distinction.

Not for your purposes, no. Produkt is here on a personal mission... a personal crusade against religion and anything he perceives as involving a god. For a sampling of the vile, ignorant, and downright laughable garbage that comes from this user... I would encourage you all to look at Produkt's Blog

But there is in fact a distinction to be made between Creationists and creationists. As I've pointed out... even the ID opposition doesn't have a problem with creationists. And I of course backed it up with a quote and a source. Something produkt refuses to do. Additionally, he didn't even address any of this stuff other than to come back and say both definitions say 'God did it.' The ironic thing in all this is that he says I dismiss things and change definitions. I think the evidence speaks very clearly with respect to who is dismissing things, and who is changing definitions. Readers judge for yourselves.


All this really says is yes, I believe in god, but not in the same way the extremist fundies do. Big deal!

And here we have more of the deplorable, ignorant, and inane ramblings of someone who has zero respect for an opinion that's different than his own.



Talk about bluring the lines...

What does inference mean?

To put it simply "Assumption based on an observation."

Sorry... didn't know this was a new word for you... no wonder you're having such a tough time with this. Perhaps I shouldn't assume that all ATS members possess the vocab of at least a 7th grader.


And proof? "A proof is a sequence of statements (made up of axioms, assumptions and arguments) leading to the establishment of the truth of one finat statement."

And your point is....


Now, from what it looked like to me at the time, before they've had their IC systems destroyed, they were trying to pass off these as IC systems. To infer, assume, or conclude they were IC. If they didn't feel that these system's were legitimate IC systems, then they would have had literally no reason to defend them as such.

I can't even imagine what your point is here. You're saying Behe doesn't and never did believe in IC? Huh? Substantiation please... though I'm not holding my breath.

WTF are you talking about?

Though this is an interesting point. Produkt claims "they've had their IC systems destroyed." Now this should be very easy to substantiate. He could post a reference to the so called destruction of IC, and we could discuss it. It's noteworthy that he doesn't do this. This is a legitimate avenue by which he could discredit ID.

Why doesn't he do it. Quite simply, he'd have to actually read something, and secondly he's afraid of getting his 'evidence' shredded in this forum.

Come on produkt, I'm begging you to post such an argument. Come on, you intellectual giant - post a ref that destroys IC. I'm begging you.

Don't hold your breath folks.

Continued


[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud


Abiogenesis has everything to do with ToCD

BS

Okay, explain in detail how one can have a ToCD, without a LUCA. And where did LUCA come from.



ID does take issue with the origin


Right of course not. So long as we say the designer atleast put all the elements in place that would eventually lead up to something as complex as an eye.

Perhaps you should reread my statement. I acknowledged ID does take issue with the origin of certain systems, but has no difficulty with ToCD. Ideas in science differ - like the punkeek and gradualistic models you ignored, get used to it. It's what drives science forward.


I personally dislike evolutionist's who think god did it as well. God is a man made concept, not the other way around. And ID is about god, we already know aliens are impossible in ID world.

And here you have it. Produkt admittedly has not respect for, or tolerance of any people who hold a worldview that differs from his own. Produkt is here on a personal mission to... I guess make fun of anyone who believes in God.

Nice way to spend your time... real productive.




ID doesn't bring it up


Sure it does! By his job description. Designer.

Ummm... it's called Intelligent design, not Intelligent Designer.



[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   


you've still not posted any quote from Behe


Surely you can follow simple intrsuction's? Go back one page. You even argued against it! Deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist. Thus is the national anthem in matty land.



We're still waiting on Behe's quote from the trial.


Refer to above. Deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist.



I still say the quote you claimed


And here we have a fine example of trying to twist the issue. No where have I stated that particular quote was attributed to Behe. You really need to stop trying to confuse people on here! The quote from Behe has already been given, which you've already acknowledge and denied god know's how many time's now, and you just admitted to knowing where the other quote came from in your last post and now your denying it. Make up your damn mind! Worse then a woman FFS.



to debunk ID


We've already gone over this. No wait, let me change my mind and deny that this issue ever came up. Argh, no wait, it did come up! There's nothing in ID to debunk, all that's there is to show it for what it is. Wait, can I deny I ever said that in the same post or should I wait till the next one?



I have and continue to insist


Why do you insist on this? Lie enough and maybe people won't bother to look back one page? No where have a stated that the quote in question came from a trial and you've already AGAIN acknowledge exactly where the quote come's from.



Science is about the search for truth.


And what evidence is that?! Perhaps if there WAS evidence, then perhaps people more qualified then you, Behe, and Dembski and company would except it as a valid effort for discovering the truth. Perhaps if we didn't have such documents as the wedge then we wouldn't have ever known what IDism was originally created for! Perhaps, just perhaps if they decided to show something, some form of effort other then poking at holes and saying see see see! Perhaps then it would all be taken seriously. People know what IDism is. You can't force people to deny, dismiss and pretend it doesn't exist that easily.



You are not in this thread on page 1


You know what's really funny about this. My five year old follows simple simple so god damn simple instructions better then you. My five year old even has better reasoning skills then you. My five year old would know not to quote very simple instructions and then say I didn't post on page one. I'll try it one more time, go back one page.



WTF are you talking about?


Ugh! The deny and dismiss tactics are really getting old.



I have edited zero content in my posts


Please point out where I've said you had. You still have full oppurtunity to edit the post where you denied it doesn't exist! Quick, hurry! Must not let people see it, else they might discover your the real fraud here!



But there is in fact a distinction to be made between Creationists and creationists.


There is no definite distinction. Both groups believe GOD did the creationism, they just disagree how. The key issue is that GOD is the creator. You can capatalize, italizize, bold, do whatever the hell you want to the word. GOD STILL DID IT.



an opinion that's different than his own.


No, I respect his opinion, but it still means what it means. We can not change that.



Now this should be very easy to substantiate.


Go ahead, pick a topic! Should be fun




Okay, explain


Abiogensis is life from non-life. Evolution is just the change's life make's. So to speak. Even if abiogenesis were wrong, it still wouldn't affect evolution. The two are entirely seperate. Or do we want to lump big bang into it all too?



Intelligent design, not Intelligent Designer.


Sorry, something can't be designed without a designer. Just how thing's work.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
Surely you can follow simple intrsuction's? Go back one page. You even argued against it! Deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist. Thus is the national anthem in matty land.


quotes offered by produkt in this thread one page back

"a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity." WmAD

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. MJB, DBB

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." The wedge.

Now where in those quotes does it say that the founders of ID admitted that ID was a sham, which is the quote in question?



We're still waiting on Behe's quote from the trial.


Refer to above. Deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay... you refer to the above and tell us which quote is from Behe, and is associated with the trial, which is what you claimed when you stated.

Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed

This is the statement that needs to be substantiated. You've not done this... just continually ignored it. Where did you post the quote that backs this up, and referring someone to the trial transcript doesn't count. Remember that lesson source material I gave you a couple of posts back. Back up your statement or continue to be exposed as the dishonest fraud you are.



And here we have a fine example of trying to twist the issue. No where have I stated that particular quote was attributed to Behe.

Really... Hmmm that's funny so when you said

Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed
you weren't saying that Behe said IC is flawed... that's bizarre. I didn't say you attributed anything to Behe, I've asked you to post the quote you were referring to when you made the above statment.

But you can't because it's BS, which is why you're avoiding the issue, and why you made a reference to the entire transcript. This quote doesn't exist, and you know it doesn't. Fraud.


You really need to stop trying to confuse people on here!



The quote from Behe has already been given, which you've already acknowledge and denied god know's how many time's now,

Okay so what you're saying is that this

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
actually is behe admitting IC is a fraud... okay....
not sure how you pulled that from there... but it certainly wasn't because you read or thought about it.


and you just admitted to knowing where the other quote came from in your last post and now your denying it.
I admitted it in the last post, and the post before that, and the post before that, and the post before that.


Make up your damn mind! Worse then a woman FFS.

Oh my mind is made up... I fully admit and always have admitted I knew where the wedge quote is from. I also know where the behe and Dembski quotes are from.

One more time... let's see if we can't penetrate that skull casing just with persistance. The quote in question that needs to be supported is this.

Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed



We've already gone over this. No wait, let me change my mind and deny that this issue ever came up. Argh, no wait, it did come up! There's nothing in ID to debunk, all that's there is to show it for what it is. Wait, can I deny I ever said that in the same post or should I wait till the next one?

My posts stand as perfect record of my statements. I've not changed my opinions, nor have I denied anything I previously acknowleged.

You however have a perfect record in this thread of playing dumb with your quotes, omitting definitions that don't agree with your view, attempting to obfuscate which quotes you've substantiated and which one's you've not. In short this thread will stand as a perfect record of the fraud you are.

Challenge for you produkt. Point out one place in this thread where I've contradicted myself, changed my perception of something, or later denied something I've previously admitted. Of course this challenge will be met with absolute silence as have all other challenges laid before produkt.


Why do you insist on this? Lie enough and maybe people won't bother to look back one page? No where have a stated that the quote in question came from a trial and you've already AGAIN acknowledge exactly where the quote come's from.

I encourage people to read through the thread.... in fact, that's all I've ever done. In fact, I made it easy by posting every quote you've made in one page back in this post. If I missed one, please feel free to add it in. I've got nothing to hide here, and I've responded to everyone of your impotent assertions, something that you can't claim.



And what evidence is that?!

Where do you want to start.... maybe disconcordances in molecular homology data, thermodynamic constraints against biopolymer formation in the absence of enzymes, information theory, the cambrian explosion, Convergence, the discontinuity of germ cell derivations, reverse engineering of life. Take your pick.



Perhaps if there WAS evidence, then perhaps people more qualified then you, Behe, and Dembski and company would except it as a valid effort for discovering the truth.

Maybe, maybe not. People such as yourself, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins won't be convinced under any circumstances. You're married to your prior commitment to your atheistic perspective. No evidence is enough for you.


Perhaps if we didn't have such documents as the wedge then we wouldn't have ever known what IDism was originally created for!

The wedge is a funding document authored by the Discovery Institute. It's not the ID manifesto, or equivalent document. ID exists outside of the DI, even if the CSC is the main think tank for ID. There are other ID think tanks though... many if not most disagree with strategies as described in the wedge.


Perhaps, just perhaps if they decided to show something, some form of effort other then poking at holes and saying see see see!

I know you're fond of this statement, but ID doesn't 'poke holes' and say "see, see, see." I understand this is your juvenile perception of ID, but it's not the case, and I don't expect you to know this because of your refusal to open a book.


Perhaps then it would all be taken seriously. People know what IDism is. You can't force people to deny, dismiss and pretend it doesn't exist that easily.

Force. Please. All I've ever said is that people should read and be informed about topics. Personally, I couldn't care less what someone's opinion is re: origins, however I do expect a measure of tolerance for other ideas, even if they disagree with someones personal philosophy. I'm tolerant of other ideas, just not ignorant frauds who are repeatedly banned from sites for trolling then reappear with a new username and same steaming piles of dung.

Continued



[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
You know what's really funny about this. My five year old follows simple simple so god damn simple instructions better then you. My five year old even has better reasoning skills then you. My five year old would know not to quote very simple instructions and then say I didn't post on page one. I'll try it one more time, go back one page.

Whoops my mistake, you did say go back one page, not page one... my apologies.

In any case, rest assured that someday your five year old may end up in one of my biology classes or in one of my student's biology classes.




Ugh! The deny and dismiss tactics are really getting old.

I'm sorry but that paragraph was unintelligible.



I have edited zero content in my posts


Please point out where I've said you had. You still have full oppurtunity to edit the post where you denied it doesn't exist! Quick, hurry! Must not let people see it, else they might discover your the real fraud here!


Okay... I'm going with this quote:

QUICK TO THE EDIT MOBILE! We must delete the part that says that quote doesn't exist!
, which is contained here
So you're saying this statement doesn't imply I edit the content of my posts. Please. Fraud.



But there is in fact a distinction to be made between Creationists and creationists.

There is no definite distinction. Both groups believe GOD did the creationism, they just disagree how. The key issue is that GOD is the creator. You can capatalize, italizize, bold, do whatever the hell you want to the word. GOD STILL DID IT.

Call it what you will. By your standards, Newton, Einstein, and Darwin himself are ignorant morons who believe in a man made God. You can't dismiss Ken Miller for his beliefs which you did when you stated

I personally dislike evolutionist's who think god did it as well
, then be willing to accept the evidence of ignorant god believing morons simply because it fits your point of view. There's a term for that, and you must be familiar with it by now: Charlatan

Produkt is just as bad as Kent Hovind.

You dislike someone whose beliefs differ than yours... great attitude... and you have kids?



No, I respect his opinion, but it still means what it means. We can not change that.

Okay you respect his opinion, but you dislike him.




Go ahead, pick a topic! Should be fun

The ball's in your court. We can talk about the scientific merits of whatever you wish. Why not pick something you think will be easy for you.



Abiogensis is life from non-life. Evolution is just the change's life make's. So to speak. Even if abiogenesis were wrong, it still wouldn't affect evolution. The two are entirely seperate. Or do we want to lump big bang into it all too?

Big bang is cosmology, evolution, and abiogenesis are concerned with biological origins. Cosmology and biological origins don't belong in the same category, but biological origins and biological origins do. Abiogenesis research arose from that natural extrapolation of evolutionary theory back to LUCA and beyond. If there was no LUCA, then the entire theory of common descent is thrown into question. If you don't have LUCA, then you don't have a naturalistic origin for life at all. Abiogenesis research and hypotheses are a direct extension of ToCD. Undeniably.



Sorry, something can't be designed without a designer. Just how thing's work.

Nope, but the necessity of design can be easily falsified or supported (the point of ID) without mentioning a designer - ever.


[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   


quotes offered


YAY! Good job! You figured out howto go back on page. You deserve a cookie!
I'm so proud of you, you big boy!

And yet, decidedly dissapointed in you. You've already admitted to knowing where those quote's come from. We've already discussed where those quote's come from. Yet you'd still like to keep on with the deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist mantra.



tell us which quote is from Behe


Ouch, you almost got it buddy! Almost! Try one more time. Maybe you'll notice as they are both clearly marked and you've clearly admitted to knowing which is which. Or we can keep up the charade and just pray people won't catch on!



You've not done this


BS. You clearly know of the trial. The most that can happen now is that I post the entire transcript here or you do.



you weren't saying that Behe said IC is flawed


Sweet baby Jesus! Talk about thick skulls! I know you'd like to lead people to think that the two quote's are attributed to the wrong thing's, but I still have faith that people's reading comprehension and reasoning skills are far better then your own. Like my five year old for example!



I admitted it in the last post,


I'm sorry, pulling the BS card out on this one.



BS. Who exactly is founder of ID. And if this has been shown, you should have no problem substantiating this.


(reply to the Behe statment)



Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement.


Please, for once, make up your mind. Yes or no? Do you or do you not know where these quote's both come from? It's NOT that damn hard!



I fully admit and always have admitted I knew where the wedge quote is from. I also know where the behe and Dembski quotes are from.


And you have the balls to label me a fraud? Refer to above, everyone who doesn't live in matty land with the national anthem of deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist.



My posts stand as perfect record of my statements


THEY SURE DO! And kudo's to you for not editing them! Now everyone can see what a lying little fraud you are.



the cambrian explosion,


Yea, GOD .. umm err.. I mean the designer who shalt not be spoken of, must've gotten bored with those particular designs and wiped most of them out.



won't be convinced under any circumstances.


BS, it's about evidence. Something IDism severly lacks.



many if not most disagree with strategies as described in the wedge.


Good for them! And they should disagree with the wedge. Regardless of how many think tanks there are, we can't change history and decide that certain people didn't start the whole modern movement for certain reason's.



poke holes


Oh complete BS. Science didn't have a readily available answer for what appeared to be an IC system, and what happens? IDist's try showing it to be an IC system. Doesn't poke holes my arse.



just not ignorant frauds


You must hate yourself.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Challenge for you produkt. Point out one place in this thread where I've contradicted myself, changed my perception of something, or later denied something I've previously admitted. Of course this challenge will be met with absolute silence as have all other challenges laid before produkt.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   


So you're saying


Ugh, it doesn't say that at all. Christ, if my skull is thick, your's must be solid right through. It's a pretty clear statement IMO. Also, most people would note the hint of sarcasm in there. Most ...



then be willing to accept the evidence of ignorant god believing morons


Had they decided to say GOD was the casue of gravity, GR, etc, then yes, I wouldn't accept that aspect at all. There is no supernatural guy going around zapping crap into existence.



but you dislike him


nonono, never said that either. I don't know him personally to dislike him, but what he stated still means what it means. I'm not sure how to put it in mattenese



evolution, and abiogenesis are concerned with biological origins.


Evolution has literally nothing to do with origins. If Abiogenesis is akin to evolution then big bang is akin to abiogenesis making it one complete happy family.



then you don't have a naturalistic origin for life at all.


Let's suppose abiogenesis is completly wrong and that GOD did it, but in such a way to allow for common decent/evolution. Does this mean evolution is wrong because abiogenesis never happened?



Nope, but the necessity of design can be easily falsified or supported (the point of ID) without mentioning a designer - ever.


So far, it hasn't been supported, has no evidence of anything being designed, and all it does is play court games. One thing I can agree on, it has been falsified, but I'm not sure that alone is enough to make it a legitimate field of science.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   


Point out one place in this thread where I've contradicted myself, changed my perception of something, or later denied something I've previously admitted.


Ok, now I'm positivly infering based upon my indirect observations (which make's it a legitimate conclusion) that your skull is solid right through.

I've already posted this prior to the challenge.

--------

I'm sorry, pulling the BS card out on this one.

Reply to founder statement

quote:
BS. Who exactly is founder of ID. And if this has been shown, you should have no problem substantiating this.


(reply to the Behe statment)

quote:
Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement.


And yet, furthur in you admit to knowing where these two statments come from. IDK, maybe I wasn't informed on the definition change for contradiction as well? Care to "clue" me in on what a contradiction is?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud
And yet, decidedly dissapointed in you. You've already admitted to knowing where those quote's come from. We've already discussed where those quote's come from. Yet you'd still like to keep on with the deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist mantra.

You're going to have to explain this to me... apparently in more detail than you would your 5 year old. How can I simultaneously admit to knowing where quotes came from, and deny they don't exist? Just curious.



tell us which quote is from Behe


Don't quote me out of context you ignorant fraud. This is the quote in it's entirety:

and tell us which quote is from Behe, and is associated with the trial, which is what you claimed when you stated.

Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed



Ouch, you almost got it buddy! Almost! Try one more time. Maybe you'll notice as they are both clearly marked and you've clearly admitted to knowing which is which. Or we can keep up the charade and just pray people won't catch on!

I hope people are reading this. If they are they're certainly noting your tactics, such as that demonstrated above, quoting out of context.

On the other hand... I've reproduced each of your quotes in their entirety. On the few occassions where I didn't this is clearly marked.

Your an ignorant, misquoting, deceptive, fraud. Everyone at ATS knows this, produkt. You're a troll, and it's why you're constantly being warned and or banned.



You've not done this



BS. You clearly know of the trial. The most that can happen now is that I post the entire transcript here or you do.

Actually, an honest person would quote where specifically in the transcript this happened. The reason you won't do this is because it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would require you actually reading the trial transcript.

That you won't post this quote speaks volumes with respect to your honesty and integrity.



you weren't saying that Behe said IC is flawed



Sweet baby Jesus! Talk about thick skulls! I know you'd like to lead people to think that the two quote's are attributed to the wrong thing's, but I still have faith that people's reading comprehension and reasoning skills are far better then your own. Like my five year old for example!

That little rant doesn't answer the question asked. What is it that you can't respond to direct questions?

I'll ask again: You weren't saying that Behe admitted IC was flawed under oath?



I admitted it in the last post,



I'm sorry, pulling the BS card out on this one.


We're waiting where is the 'BS Card"

The quote in its entirety:

and you just admitted to knowing where the other quote came from in your last post and now your denying it.

I admitted it in the last post, and the post before that, and the post before that, and the post before that.


Please show me where in this thread I denied knowing the source of one of your quotes.



BS. Who exactly is founder of ID. And if this has been shown, you should have no problem substantiating this.



(reply to the Behe statment)






Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement.


For some reason produkt has pulled this statement from a post of mine about 6 or 7 posts ago. The quote in its entirety is as follows:

(produkt) Or we can talk about Behe, who acknowledged under oath that IC is utterly flawed. Maybe not in so many words, but essentially that is the gist of it.

(mattison)Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement. I can see why you get so upset when I insist people don't describe things they think up as being 'evidence,' it appears to be your MO.


Now produkt asks:

Please, for once, make up your mind. Yes or no? Do you or do you not know where these quote's both come from? It's NOT that damn hard!


Would someone, as bsl4doc would say, for the love of god and everything holy, please point out where in my posts I've ever denied knowing the source of your quotes.

This piece you've quoted from me, certainly doesn't show this, and more or less demonstrates what I've been saying. You claim Behe admitted under oath that IC is flawed, yet you've refused to back this up. To make it worse, you say the only way you can back it up is by posting a link the trial transcript.

Produkt, have you ever heard of lifting the specific quote (in context of course) from your source to make your case. It would go along way to earning some credibility around here.



I fully admit and always have admitted I knew where the wedge quote is from. I also know where the behe and Dembski quotes are from.



And you have the balls to label me a fraud? Refer to above, everyone who doesn't live in matty land with the national anthem of deny, dismiss, pretend it doesn't exist.

Please ATS members do read the thread, starting from Produkt... I mean ID_is_a_Frauds first post. What I've been saying all along is absolutely true, produkt posts quotes not relevant to a particular argument then proceeds to state he 'already covered it.'

I'll ask again: Would someone, as bsl4doc would say, for the love of god and everything holy, please point out where in my posts I've ever denied knowing the source of your quotes.



My posts stand as perfect record of my statements



THEY SURE DO! And kudo's to you for not editing them! Now everyone can see what a lying little fraud you are.





the cambrian explosion,



Yea, GOD .. umm err.. I mean the designer who shalt not be spoken of, must've gotten bored with those particular designs and wiped most of them out.

Extinction has nothing to do with origins.



BS, it's about evidence. Something IDism severly lacks.

The funny thing is that the IDist, the Creationist, and the evolutionist all have the same evidence available. The differences lie only the interpretation of said evidence.



many if not most disagree with strategies as described in the wedge.



Good for them! And they should disagree with the wedge. Regardless of how many think tanks there are, we can't change history and decide that certain people didn't start the whole modern movement for certain reason's.

The DI didn't start the ID movement. The DI wasn't founded till the '90's.



Oh complete BS. Science didn't have a readily available answer for what appeared to be an IC system, and what happens? IDist's try showing it to be an IC system. Doesn't poke holes my arse.

You're wrong. There are certainly papers re: the origins of the eye, the origins of the flagellum, and the origins of blood clotting. The papers exist. It's a question of interpretation. Facts are facts, but what's inferred from any specific set of facts is entirely a personal thing.



You must hate yourself.


hmmm... not making the connection, but nope. In fact, I was just telling my wife last night, other than more babies, there's absolutely nothing in my life I can complain about. I don't make s&^t for money, and work a lot, but I love what I do. I have zero to complain about in my life.... certainly not my own beliefs.

The only person in this thread who's espoused any sort of hate is you.

In any case... Please note ATS members all the challenges and specific requests in this thread that produkt has been unable to meet. I would again further refer you to the troll like nature of this user simply by pointing out his two previous usernames, produkt, and prot0n. If anyone here is a liar, it's produkt. He can't even follow the T&C. He comes back for 2 days and he's already flagged. He's a troll.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ID_is_a_Fraud



Point out one place in this thread where I've contradicted myself, changed my perception of something, or later denied something I've previously admitted.


Ok, now I'm positivly infering based upon my indirect observations (which make's it a legitimate conclusion) that your skull is solid right through.

I've already posted this prior to the challenge.

--------

I'm sorry, pulling the BS card out on this one.

Reply to founder statement

quote:
BS. Who exactly is founder of ID. And if this has been shown, you should have no problem substantiating this.


(reply to the Behe statment)

quote:
Another completely untrue, and utterly unsubstantiated statement.


And yet, furthur in you admit to knowing where these two statments come from. IDK, maybe I wasn't informed on the definition change for contradiction as well? Care to "clue" me in on what a contradiction is?


Produkt, this in no way demonstrates I denied knowing where a quote came from.
The only thing I claimed ignorance of there is who the 'father' of ID is.

Please, explain this to me like you might explain it to your two year old.

Remember... apparently my skull is thicker than yours, so you'll have to be very specific.

One more time, let's see if you can pull it off this time. Point out one place in this thread where I've contradicted myself, changed my perception of something, or later denied something I've previously admitted. What you've posted so far distinctly doesn't do this.

Asking who you think the father of ID is in no way similar to saying I don't know the source of a quote. Try again.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
OK everyone, enough with the personal attacks. Please stay on topic and treat other members with respect.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join